skip to main navigation skip to secondary navigation skip to content
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
skip to content

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms
March 2013

Summary

The March 2013 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms collected qualitative information on changes over the previous three months in credit terms and conditions in securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets. In addition to the core set of questions, the survey included two sets of special questions. The first set asked about changes since the middle of 2012 in the provision of warehouse funding for commercial real estate (CRE) loans and syndicated bank loans on an interim basis prior to securitization. The second set queried dealers about changes in client risk appetite since the beginning of 2013. The 22 institutions participating in the survey provide almost all of the dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted during the period from February 19, 2013, to March 4, 2013. The core questions ask about changes between December 2012 and February 2013.1

Responses to the March survey generally suggested little change over the past three months in the credit terms applicable to important classes of counterparties. As in previous surveys, respondents indicated that most nonprice terms incorporated in new or renegotiated OTC derivatives master agreements were broadly unchanged, on balance, during the same period. Dealers also reported that initial margin requirements, which fall outside the scope of the master agreements, were generally little changed. However, responses to the survey offered several insights regarding recent developments and current areas of focus in dealer-intermediated markets:

  • Continuing a trend observed in previous surveys, a large net fraction of respondents reported an increase in the amount of resources and attention devoted to management of concentrated exposures to central counterparties and other financial market utilities.
  • Overall, respondents noted that the use of financial leverage by most classes of counterparties had remained basically unchanged over the past three months. However, more than one-fourth of dealers, on net, reported an increase in the use of leverage by hedge funds.
  • While the credit terms applicable to the funding of the various types of securities covered in the survey were reported to be little changed, on net, over the past three months, dealers indicated that demand for funding had increased for a number of collateral types, particularly for securitized products. Almost two‑thirds of respondents reported increased demand for funding of non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), whereas about two-fifths noted increased demand for funding of agency RMBS and commercial mortgage‑backed securities (CMBS).
  • For most of the collateral types covered by the survey, dealers characterized liquidity and functioning in the underlying markets as improved relative to three months earlier.
  • In response to the set of special questions on warehouse funding of CRE loans and syndicated bank loans prior to securitization, notable net fractions of dealers reported an increased willingness to fund such loans on an interim basis at prevailing market rates and under prevailing terms since the middle of 2012. About one-half of survey respondents also indicated that demand for such interim funding for CRE and syndicated bank loans had increased over the same period.
  • In response to the set of special questions about client risk appetite, dealers reported that the appetite of most client types to bear investment risk had increased since the beginning of 2013. In particular, nearly one-half of dealers, on net, noted an increase in the risk appetite of their most-favored hedge fund clients, while about one-fourth of respondents pointed to an increase on the part of other hedge funds and insurance companies.

Counterparty Types

(Questions 1-40)

Dealers and other financial intermediaries. In the March survey, all but two respondents indicated that the amount of resources and attention devoted to management of concentrated exposures to dealers and other financial intermediaries remained basically unchanged over the past three months. (See the exhibit "Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit.") The fraction of dealers reporting an increase in the amount of resources and attention devoted to management of concentrated exposures to dealers and other financial intermediaries has declined gradually from the 90 percent peak reached in the December 2011 survey.

Central counterparties and other financial utilities. About three-fifths of dealers indicated that they had increased the amount of resources and attention devoted to management of concentrated credit exposure to central counterparties and other financial utilities over the past three months, roughly the same share as in previous surveys. About one-fifth of survey respondents noted that the credit terms their institutions applied to clients on bilateral transactions that are not cleared had been influenced to a more than minimal extent by changes in the practices of central counterparties, including changes in margin requirements and haircuts.

Hedge funds. As in December, respondents to the March survey generally indicated that both price terms (such as financing rates) and nonprice terms (including haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions, or other documentation features) offered to hedge funds for securities financing and OTC derivatives transactions had remained basically unchanged over the past three months. However, more than one-fourth of respondents reported an increase in the use of financial leverage by hedge funds over the past three months. (See the exhibit "Use of Financial Leverage.") Nearly one-fourth of dealers further noted that there had been an increase in the intensity of efforts by hedge funds to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms over the same period. A similar fraction noted that the provision of differential terms to most-favored hedge funds had increased somewhat.

Trading real estate investment trusts. Most respondents to the March survey reported that price and nonprice terms offered to trading real estate investment trusts (REITs) had remained basically unchanged over the past three months.2 Respondents generally indicated that the use of financial leverage by trading REITs had also remained basically unchanged. Dealers also noted that both the intensity of efforts by trading REITs to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms and the provision of differential terms to most-favored clients were broadly unchanged.

Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, and endowments. Respondents to the March survey indicated that both price and nonprice terms offered to mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, and endowments had remained essentially unchanged over the past three months. Provision of differential terms to most-favored clients and the intensity of efforts by clients to negotiate more-favorable terms were also reported to be little changed, as was the use of financial leverage.

Insurance companies. Respondents to the March survey indicated that both price and nonprice terms offered to insurance companies had changed little over the past three months, as had the provision of differential terms to most-favored clients. The use of financial leverage by insurance companies also remained unchanged. A few respondents reported an increase in the intensity of efforts by insurance companies to negotiate more‑favorable price and nonprice terms.

Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers. As in the previous survey, nearly all of the dealers reported in the March survey that price and nonprice terms negotiated by investment advisers on behalf of separately managed accounts were basically unchanged over the past three months. Provision of differential terms to most-favored clients and the intensity of effort by clients to negotiate more‑favorable terms were also reported to be little changed. Finally, the use of financial leverage by investment advisers remained basically unchanged.

Nonfinancial corporations. About one-fifth of respondents indicated that they had eased somewhat price terms offered to nonfinancial corporations over the past three months; a couple of dealers also pointed to an easing of nonprice terms. More than one‑fourth of respondents reported an increase in the intensity of efforts by nonfinancial corporations to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms.

Mark and collateral disputes. As in previous surveys, a large majority of respondents in March indicated that the volume, persistence, and duration of mark and collateral disputes with each counterparty type included in the survey were little changed over the past three months. A few respondents, however, reported a decline over the same period in the volume of mark and collateral disputes with dealers and other financial intermediaries as well as with hedge funds.

Back to section top


Over-the-Counter Derivatives

(Questions 41-51)

As in previous surveys, most nonprice terms incorporated in new or renegotiated OTC derivatives master agreements were reported to be basically unchanged, on net, over the past three months. 3 However, in a departure from prior survey responses, one-fourth of dealers reported a tightening in acceptable collateral, and one-fifth of respondents also indicated that requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin had tightened somewhat over the past three months.

For all of the contract types included in the survey, nearly all of the dealers indicated that initial margins (which fall outside the scope of master agreements) were little changed over the past three months. Posting of nonstandard collateral (that is, collateral other than cash and U.S. Treasury securities) also remained basically unchanged on balance.

For most contract types included in the survey, dealers generally indicated that the volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes had remained basically unchanged over the past three months. However, a few dealers reported a decline in mark and collateral disputes with regard to credit derivatives referencing corporates and securitized products (including MBS and ABS) as well as with regard to commodities.

Back to section top

Securities Financing

(Questions 52-79)4

As in previous surveys, dealers reported that the credit terms under which most types of securities included in the survey are financed were little changed, on balance, over the past three months. However, in the March survey, dealers reported that demand for funding had increased for a number of collateral types. (See the exhibit "Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning.") In particular, significant net fractions of respondents noted an increase in demand for funding of securitized products. Almost two-thirds of dealers reported increased demand for funding of non-agency RMBS, while about two-fifths of respondents pointed to increased demand for funding of agency RMBS and CMBS. In addition, smaller net fractions of dealers reported increased demand for funding of high-yield and high‑grade corporate bonds as well as equities. Finally, respondents noted an increase in demand for term funding--that is, funding with a maturity of 30 days or more--for several types of collateral. Almost two-fifths of respondents reported such an increase with respect to high‑yield corporate bonds, and about one-fourth with respect to agency and non-agency RMBS as well as CMBS.

Survey respondents characterized liquidity and functioning over the past three months as improved in a number of markets. In particular, roughly one-fifth of respondents noted such an improvement in the markets for CMBS, non-agency RMBS, consumer ABS, and high-yield corporate bonds.5 Finally, as in recent surveys, almost all of the respondents indicated that the volume, duration, and persistence of market and collateral disputes were basically unchanged for all of the collateral types.

Back to section top

Special Questions on Warehouse Funding of Commercial Real Estate and Syndicated Bank Loans prior to Securitization

(Questions 81-86)

A number of new CMBS issues and collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) have been brought to market over the past nine months. In some cases, such primary market activities rely on dealers providing funding for the collateral on an interim basis prior to securitization through "warehouse" lending facilities. The first set of special questions in the March survey asked dealers about the provision of warehouse funding for CRE loans and for syndicated bank loans.

With regard to CRE loans, about one-third of dealers that funded such loans on an interim basis through warehouse financing and similar secured facilities indicated that they had eased their terms on the loans somewhat since the middle of 2012. About one‑fourth of respondents also noted an increase in their willingness to fund these loans on an interim basis at prevailing market rates and under prevailing market terms over the same period. In addition, about one-half of dealers reported an increase in demand by their clients for funding CRE loans on an interim basis since the middle of 2012.

With respect to syndicated bank loans, the terms under which these loans are funded on an interim basis through warehouse financing and similar secured facilities were reported to have remained basically unchanged since the middle of 2012. However, about one‑third of dealers on net that offered such funding indicated that they had become more willing to fund these loans on an interim basis at prevailing market rates and under prevailing market terms. More than one-half of respondents also reported an increase in demand for funding syndicated bank loans on an interim basis since the middle of 2012.

Special Question on Client Risk Appetite

(Question 87)

The last special question queried dealers about changes in risk appetite of different client types since the beginning of 2013. Overall, respondents indicated that the appetite of most client types to bear investment risk had increased. (See the exhibit "Client Risk Appetite.") Most notably, nearly one-half of dealers, on net, reported an increase in risk appetite of their most-favored hedge fund clients, and about one-fourth of respondents, on balance, noted an increase for other hedge funds and insurance companies.

Back to section top

This document was prepared by Lubomir Petrasek, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Assistance in developing and administering the survey was provided by staff members in the Statistics Function and the Markets Group at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Exhibit 1: Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit

Accessible version

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Accessible version

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand of Funding and Market Functioning

Accessible version

Exhibit 4: Client Risk Appetite

Accessible version

Results of the March 2013 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

The following results include the original instructions provided to the survey respondents. Please note that percentages are based on the number of financial institutions that gave responses other than "Not applicable." Components may not add to totals due to rounding.

Counterparty Types

Questions 1 through 40 ask about credit terms applicable to, and mark and collateral disputes with, different counterparty types, considering the entire range of securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions. Question 1 focuses on dealers and other financial intermediaries as counterparties; questions 2 and 3 on central counterparties and other financial utilities; questions 4 through 10 focus on hedge funds; questions 11 through 16 on trading real estate investment trusts (REITs); questions 17 through 22 on mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), pension plans, and endowments; questions 23 through 28 on insurance companies; questions 29 through 34 on separately managed accounts established with investment advisers; and questions 35 through 38 on nonfinancial corporations. Questions 39 and 40 ask about mark and collateral disputes for each of the aforementioned counterparty types.

In some questions, the survey differentiates between the compensation demanded for bearing credit risk (price terms) and the contractual provisions used to mitigate exposures (nonprice terms). If your institution’s terms have tightened or eased over the past three months, please so report them regardless of how they stand relative to longer-term norms. Please focus your response on dollar-denominated instruments; if material differences exist with respect to instruments denominated in other currencies, please explain in the appropriate comment space. Where material differences exist across different business areas--for example, between traditional prime brokerage and OTC derivatives--please answer with regard to the business area generating the most exposure and explain in the appropriate comment space.

    Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

  1. Over the past three months, how has the amount of resources and attention your firm devotes to management of concentrated credit exposure to dealers and other financial intermediaries (such as large banking institutions) changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 2 9.1
    Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  2. Back to section top


    Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

  3. Over the past three months, how has the amount of resources and attention your firm devotes to management of concentrated credit exposure to central counterparties and other financial utilities changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 3 13.6
    Increased somewhat 10 45.5
    Remained basically unchanged 9 40.9
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0

  4. To what extent have changes in the practices of central counterparties, including margin requirements and haircuts, influenced the credit terms your institution applies to clients on bilateral transactions which are not cleared?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    To a considerable extent 0 0.0
    To some extent 4 18.2
    To a minimal extent 10 45.5
    Not at all 8 36.4
    Total 22 100.0

  5. Back to section top


    Hedge Funds

  6. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to hedge funds as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if financing rates have risen.)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
    Eased somewhat 2 9.1
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0

  7. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions, or other documentation features) with respect to hedge funds across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if haircuts have been increased.)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
    Eased somewhat 2 9.1
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0

  8. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to hedge funds have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 4 and 5), what are the most important reasons for the change?
    1. Possible reasons for tightening
      1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      4. Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      5. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      6. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0
      7. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      8. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0
    2. Possible reasons for easing
      1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 1 100.0
        Total 1 100.0

      2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 1 100.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 1 100.0

      3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 1 100.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 1 100.0

      5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 1 50.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 1 50.0
        Total 2 100.0

      6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 1 100.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 1 100.0

      7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 3 100.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 3 100.0
  9. How has the intensity of efforts by hedge funds to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 5 22.7
    Remained basically unchanged 17 77.3
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0

  10. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for such clients, how has the use of financial leverage by hedge funds changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 7 31.8
    Remained basically unchanged 14 63.6
    Decreased somewhat 1 4.5
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0

  11. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for such clients, how has the availability of additional (and currently unutilized) financial leverage under agreements currently in place with hedge funds (for example, under prime broker, warehouse agreements, and other committed but undrawn or partly drawn facilities) changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 3 13.6
    Remained basically unchanged 19 86.4
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0

  12. How has the provision of differential terms by your institution to most-favored (as a function of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship) hedge funds changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 6 27.3
    Remained basically unchanged 16 72.7
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0

  13. Back to section top


    Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

  14. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to trading REITs as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if financing rates have risen.)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 2 11.8
    Remained basically unchanged 14 82.4
    Eased somewhat 1 5.9
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0

  15. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to trading REITs across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if haircuts have been increased.)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 1 5.6
    Remained basically unchanged 16 88.9
    Eased somewhat 1 5.6
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0

  16. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to trading REITs have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 11 and 12), what are the most important reasons for the change?
    1. Possible reasons for tightening
      1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 100.0
        Total 0 100.0

      3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 1 100.0
        Total 1 100.0

      5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 1 50.0
        Second in importance 1 50.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 2 100.0

      6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 1 50.0
        Second in importance 1 50.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 2 100.0

      7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

    2. Possible reasons for easing
      1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 1 100.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 1 100.0

      7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 1 100.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 1 100.0
  17. How has the intensity of efforts by trading REITs to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0

  18. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for such clients, how has the use of financial leverage by trading REITs changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 5.6
    Remained basically unchanged 17 94.4
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0

  19. How has the provision of differential terms by your institution to most-favored (as a function of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship) trading REITs changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 2 11.1
    Remained basically unchanged 16 88.9
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  20. Back to section top


    Mutual Funds, Exchange-Traded Funds, Pension Plans, and Endowments

  21. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if financing rates have risen.)

    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 21 95.5
    Eased somewhat 1 4.5
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0

  22. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if haircuts have been increased.)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 22 100.0
    Eased somewhat 0 0
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0

  23. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 16 and 17), what are the most important reasons for the change?
    1. Possible reasons for tightening
      1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0
    2. Possible reasons for easing
      1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 1 100.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 1 100.0
  24. How has the intensity of efforts by mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 22 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0

  25. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution, how has the use of financial leverage by each of the following types of clients changed over the past three months?
    1. Mutual funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 21 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0

    2. ETFs
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0

    3. Pension plans
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0

    4. Endowments
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
  26. How has the provision of differential terms by your institution to most-favored (as a function of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship) mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 2 9.1
    Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  27. Back to section top


    Insurance Companies

  28. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to insurance companies as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if financing rates have risen.)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
    Eased somewhat 1 4.8
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0

  29. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to insurance companies across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if haircuts have been increased.)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
    Eased somewhat 1 4.8
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  30. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to insurance companies have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 22 and 23), what are the most important reasons for the change?
    1. Possible reasons for tightening
      1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

    2. Possible reasons for easing
      1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 1 100.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 1 100.0

      4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 1 100.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 1 100.0
  31. How has the intensity of efforts by insurance companies to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 3 15.0
    Remained basically unchanged 17 85.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

  32. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for such clients, how has the use of financial leverage by insurance companies changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 4.8
    Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0

  33. How has the provision of differential terms by your institution to most-favored (as a function of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship) insurance companies changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 4.8
    Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0

    Back to section top


  34. Separately Managed Accounts Established with Investment Advisers

  35. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to separately managed accounts established with investment advisers as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if financing rates have risen.)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
    Eased somewhat 1 5.0
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

  36. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to separately managed accounts established with investment advisers across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if haircuts have been increased.)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
    Eased somewhat 1 5.0
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

  37. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to separately managed accounts established with investment advisers have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 28 and 29), what are the most important reasons for the change?
    1. Possible reasons for tightening
      1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0
    2. Possible reasons for easing
      1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 2 100.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 2 100.0

  38. How has the intensity of efforts by investment advisers to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms on behalf of separately managed accounts changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 2 10.0
    Remained basically unchanged 18 90.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

  39. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for such clients, how has the use of financial leverage by separately managed accounts established with investment advisers changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

  40. How has the provision of differential terms by your institution to separately managed accounts established with most-favored (as a function of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship) investment advisers changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  41. Back to section top


    Nonfinancial Corporations

  42. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to nonfinancial corporations as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if financing rates have risen.)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 18 81.8
    Eased somewhat 4 18.2
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0

  43. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to nonfinancial corporations across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if haircuts have been increased.)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
    Eased somewhat 2 9.1
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  44. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to nonfinancial corporations have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 34 and 35), what are the most important reasons for the change?
    1. Possible reasons for tightening
      1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 100.0

      3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

    2. Possible reasons for easing
      1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 1 100.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 1 100.0

      2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 1 33.3
        Second in importance 1 33.3
        Third in importance 1 33.3
        Total 3 100.0

      3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 1 100.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 1 100.0

      4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 0 0.0

      5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 0 0.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 2 100.0
        Total 2 100.0

      6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 1 100.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 1 100.0

      7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
        First in importance 3 100.0
        Second in importance 0 0.0
        Third in importance 0 0.0
        Total 3 100.0
  45. How has the intensity of efforts by nonfinancial corporations to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 1 4.5
    Increased somewhat 5 22.7
    Remained basically unchanged 16 72.7
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  46. Back to section top


    Mark and Collateral Disputes

  47. Over the past three months, how has the volume of mark and collateral disputes with clients of each of the following types changed?
    1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 4.5
      Remained basically unchanged 18 81.8
      Decreased somewhat 3 13.6
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 22 100.0

    2. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
      Decreased somewhat 2 9.1
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 22 100.0

    3. Trading REITs
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 17 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0

    4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
      Decreased somewhat 1 5.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0

    5. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 21 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0

    6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0

    7. Nonfinancial corporations
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0

  48. Over the past three months, how has the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes with clients of each of the following types changed?
    1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 2 9.1
      Remained basically unchanged 17 77.3
      Decreased somewhat 3 13.6
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 22 100.0

    2. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
      Decreased somewhat 2 9.1
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 22 100.0

    3. Trading REITs
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 18 100.0

    4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19

      95.0

      Decreased somewhat 1 5.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0

    5. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 1 4.8
      Total 21 100.0

    6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 1 5.0
      Total 20 100.0

    7. Nonfinancial corporations
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
  49. Back to section top


    Over-the-Counter Derivatives

    Questions 41 through 51 ask about OTC derivatives trades. Question 41 focuses on nonprice terms applicable to new and renegotiated master agreements. Questions 42 through 48 ask about the initial margin requirements for most-favored and average clients applicable to different types of contracts: Question 42 focuses on foreign exchange (FX); question 43 on interest rates; question 44 on equity; question 45 on contracts referencing corporate credits (single-name and indexes); question 46 on credit derivatives referencing structured products such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and asset-backed securities (ABS) (specific tranches and indexes); question 47 on commodities; and question 48 on total return swaps (TRS) referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans). Question 49 asks about posting of nonstandard collateral pursuant to OTC derivative contracts. Questions 50 and 51 focus on mark and collateral disputes involving contracts of each of the aforementioned types.

    If your institution’s terms have tightened or eased over the past three months, please so report them regardless of how they stand relative to longer-term norms. Please focus your response on dollar-denominated instruments; if material differences exist with respect to instruments denominated in other currencies, please explain in the appropriate comment space.



    New and Renegotiated Master Agreements

  50. Over the past three months, how have nonprice terms incorporated in new or renegotiated OTC derivatives master agreements put in place with your institution’s client changed?
    1. Requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 5 25.0
      Remained basically unchanged 14 70.0
      Eased somewhat 1 5.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0

    2. Acceptable collateral
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 1 5.0
      Tightened somewhat 5 25.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 65.0
      Eased somewhat 1 5.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0

    3. Recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits (including from securities financing trades where appropriate agreements are in place)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0

    4. Triggers and covenants
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 3 15.0
      Remained basically unchanged 16 80.0
      Eased somewhat 1 5.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0

    5. Other documentation features (including cure periods and cross-default provisions)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 2 10.0
      Remained basically unchanged 16 80.0
      Eased somewhat 2 10.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0

  51. Back to section top


    Initial Margin

  52. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC FX derivatives changed?
    1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 18 94.7
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 1 5.3
      Total 19 100.0

    2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 18 94.7
      Decreased somewhat 1 5.3
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0

  53. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC interest rate derivatives changed?
    1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0

    2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained basically unchanged 17 85.0
      Decreased somewhat 2 10.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
  54. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC equity derivatives changed?
    1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 18 100.0

    2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 5.6
      Remained basically unchanged 17 94.4
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 18 100.0

  55. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC credit derivatives referencing corporates (single-name corporates or corporate indexes) changed?
    1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 17 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0

    2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 17 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0

  56. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC credit derivatives referencing securitized products (such as specific ABS or MBS tranches and associated indexes) changed?
    1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 11 91.7
      Decreased somewhat 1 8.3
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 12 100.0

    2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 11 91.7
      Decreased somewhat 1 8.3
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 12 100.0

  57. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC commodity derivatives changed?
    1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 15 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0

    2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 15 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0

  58. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to TRS referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans) changed?
    1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 11 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 11 100.0

    2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 11 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 11 100.0

    Back to section top


    Nonstandard Collateral

  59. Over the past three months, how has the posting of nonstandard collateral (that is, other than cash and U.S. Treasury securities) as permitted under relevant agreements changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 4.5
    Remained basically unchanged 21 95.5
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  60. Back to section top


    Mark and Collateral Disputes

  61. Over the past three months, how has the volume of mark and collateral disputes relating to contracts of each of the following types changed?
    1. FX
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 2 11.1
      Remained basically unchanged 14 77.8
      Decreased somewhat 2 11.1
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 18 100.0

    2. Interest rate
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 18 94.7
      Decreased somewhat 1 5.3
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0

    3. Equity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 2 11.1
      Remained basically unchanged 14 77.8
      Decreased somewhat 1 5.6
      Decreased considerably 1 5.6
      Total 18 100.0

    4. Credit referencing corporates
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 6.3
      Remained basically unchanged 12 75.0
      Decreased somewhat 3 18.8
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0

    5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 10 83.3
      Decreased somewhat 2 16.7
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 12 100.0

    6. Commodity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 14 87.5
      Decreased somewhat 1 6.3
      Decreased considerably 1 6.3
      Total 16 100.0

    7. TRS referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 11 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 11 100.0
  62. Over the past three months, how has the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes relating to contracts of each of the following types changed?
    1. FX
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2
      Decreased somewhat 2 11.8
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0

    2. Interest rate
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 17 94.4
      Decreased somewhat 1 5.6
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 18 100.0

    3. Equity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 2 11.8
      Remained basically unchanged 14 82.4
      Decreased somewhat 1 5.9
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0

    4. Credit referencing corporates
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 6.7
      Remained basically unchanged 12 80.0
      Decreased somewhat 2 13.3
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0

    5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 10 90.9
      Decreased somewhat 1 9.1
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 11 100.0

    6. Commodity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 14 93.3
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 1 6.7
      Total 15 100.0

    7. TRS referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 10 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 10 100.0
  63. Back to section top

    Securities Financing

    Questions 52 through 79 ask about securities funding at your institution--that is, lending to clients collateralized by securities. Such activities may be conducted on a "repo" desk, on a trading desk engaged in facilitation for institutional clients and/or proprietary transactions, on a funding desk, or on a prime brokerage platform. Questions 52 through 55 focus on lending against high-grade corporate bonds; questions 56 through 59 on lending against high-yield corporate bonds; questions 60 and 61 on lending against equities (including through stock loan); questions 62 through 65 on lending against agency residential mortgage-backed securities (agency RMBS); questions 66 through 69 on lending against non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (non-agency RMBS); questions 70 through 73 on lending against commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS); and questions 74 through 77 on consumer ABS (for example, backed by credit card receivables or auto loans). Questions 78 and 79 ask about mark and collateral disputes for lending backed by each of the aforementioned contract types.

    If your institution’s terms have tightened or eased over the past three months, please so report them regardless of how they stand relative to longer-term norms. Please focus your response on dollar-denominated instruments; if material differences exist with respect to instruments denominated in other currencies, please explain in the appropriate comment space.



    High-Grade Corporate Bonds

  64. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which high-grade corporate bonds are funded changed?
    1. Terms for average clients
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 1 5.9
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2
        Eased somewhat 1 5.9
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 17 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2
        Eased somewhat 2 11.8
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 17 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 17 100.0
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 17 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 15 93.8
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 1 6.3
        Total 16 100.0

    2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship

      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 1 5.9
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2
        Eased somewhat 1 5.9
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 17 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2
        Eased somewhat 2 11.8
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 17 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 17 100.0
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 17 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 1 6.3
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 15 93.8
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 16 100.0

  65. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of high-grade corporate bonds by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 3 17.6
    Remained basically unchanged 13 76.5
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 1 5.9
    Total 17 100.0

  66. Over the past three months, how has demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days of high-grade corporate bonds by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 3 17.6
    Remained basically unchanged 13 76.5
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0

  67. Over the past three months, how have liquidity and functioning in the high-grade corporate bond market changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Improved considerably 0 0.0
    Improved somewhat 2 11.8
    Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2
    Deteriorated somewhat 0 0.0
    Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  68. Back to section top


    High-Yield Corporate Bonds

  69. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which high-yield corporate bonds are funded changed?
    1. Terms for average clients
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 1 6.3
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 13 81.3
        Eased somewhat 2 12.5
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 16 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 14 87.5
        Eased somewhat 2 12.5
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 16 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 15 93.8
        Eased somewhat 1 6.3
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 16 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 1

        6.7

        Remained basically unchanged 11 73.3
        Eased somewhat 3 20.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 15 100.0

    2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 1 6.3
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 13 81.3
        Eased somewhat 2 12.5
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 16 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 14 87.5
        Eased somewhat 2 12.5
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 16 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 15 93.8
        Eased somewhat 1 6.3
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 16 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 1 6.7
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 12 80.0
        Eased somewhat 2 13.3
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 15 100.0

  70. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of high-yield corporate bonds by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 4 25.0
    Remained basically unchanged 12 75.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0

  71. Over the past three months, how has demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days of high-yield corporate bonds by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 6 37.5
    Remained basically unchanged 10 62.5
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0

  72. Over the past three months, how have liquidity and functioning in the high-yield corporate bond market changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Improved considerably 1 5.9
    Improved somewhat 3 17.6
    Remained basically unchanged 12 70.6
    Deteriorated somewhat 1 5.9
    Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  73. Back to section top


    Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

  74. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which equities are funded (including through stock loan) changed?
    1. Terms for average clients
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
        Eased somewhat 1 4.8
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 21 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
        Eased somewhat 1 4.8
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 21 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 21 100.0
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 21 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 1 5.3
        Remained basically unchanged 16 84.2
        Eased somewhat 2 10.5
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 19 100.0

    2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
        Eased somewhat 1 4.8
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 21 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
        Eased somewhat 1 4.8
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 21 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 21 100.0
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 21 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 17 89.5
        Eased somewhat 2 10.5
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 19 100.0

  75. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of equities (including through stock loan) by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 4 18.2
    Remained basically unchanged 17 77.3
    Decreased somewhat 1 4.5
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  76. Back to section top


    Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

  77. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which agency RMBS are funded changed?
    1. Terms for average clients
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 1 5.0
        Remained basically unchanged 16 80.0
        Eased somewhat 3 15.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 20 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 1 5.0
        Remained basically unchanged 17 85.0
        Eased somewhat 2 10.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 20 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
        Eased somewhat 1 5.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 20 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 2 11.1
        Remained basically unchanged 14 77.8
        Eased somewhat 2 11.1
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 18 100.0

    2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 1 5.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 17 85.0
        Eased somewhat 2 10.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 20 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 1 5.0
        Remained basically unchanged 16 80.0
        Eased somewhat 3 15.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 20 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
        Eased somewhat 1 5.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 20 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 2 11.1
        Remained basically unchanged 14 77.8
        Eased somewhat 2 11.1
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 18 100.0

  78. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of agency RMBS by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 8 40.0
    Remained basically unchanged 12 60.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

  79. Over the past three months, how has demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days of agency RMBS by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 5 25.0
    Remained basically unchanged 15 75.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

  80. Over the past three months, how have liquidity and functioning in the agency RMBS market changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Improved considerably 0 0.0
    Improved somewhat 2 10.0
    Remained basically unchanged 16 80.0
    Deteriorated somewhat 2 10.0
    Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  81. Back to section top


    Non-agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

  82. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which non-agency RMBS are funded changed?
    1. Terms for average clients
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 1 7.1
        Remained basically unchanged 11 78.6
        Eased somewhat 2 14.3
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 14 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7
        Eased somewhat 2 14.3
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 14 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7
        Eased somewhat 2 14.3
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 14 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7
        Eased somewhat 2 14.3
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 14 100.0

    2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 1 7.1
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 11 78.6
        Eased somewhat 2 14.3
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 14 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 1 7.1
        Remained basically unchanged 11 78.6
        Eased somewhat 2 14.3
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 14 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7
        Eased somewhat 2 14.3
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 14 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7
        Eased somewhat 2 14.3
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 14 100.0
  83. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of non-agency RMBS by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 9 64.3
    Remained basically unchanged 5 35.7
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 14 100.0

  84. Over the past three months, how has demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days of non-agency RMBS by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 5 35.7
    Remained basically unchanged 8 57.1
    Decreased somewhat 1 7.1
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 14 100.0

  85. Over the past three months, how have liquidity and functioning in the non-agency RMBS market changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Improved considerably 0 0.0
    Improved somewhat 3 21.4
    Remained basically unchanged 11 78.6
    Deteriorated somewhat 0 0.0
    Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
    Total 14 100.0
  86. Back to section top


    Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

  87. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which CMBS are funded changed?
    1. Terms for average clients
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 1 7.7
        Remained basically unchanged 12 92.3
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 13 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 13 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 11 84.6
        Eased somewhat 2 15.4
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 13 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 11 84.6
        Eased somewhat 1 7.7
        Eased considerably 1 7.7
        Total 13 100.0

    2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 1 7.7
        Remained basically unchanged 12 92.3
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 13 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 13 100.0

      3. Haircuts
      4. Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 1 7.7
        Remained basically unchanged 10 76.9
        Eased somewhat 2 15.4
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 13 100.0

      5. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 1 7.7
        Remained basically unchanged 10 76.9
        Eased somewhat 1 7.7
        Eased considerably 1 7.7
        Total 13 100.0

  88. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of CMBS by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 5 38.5
    Remained basically unchanged 8 61.5
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 13 100.0

  89. Over the past three months, how has demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days of CMBS by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 3 23.1
    Remained basically unchanged 10 76.9
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 13 100.0

  90. Over the past three months, how have liquidity and functioning in the CMBS market changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Improved considerably 0 0.0
    Improved somewhat 3 23.1
    Remained basically unchanged 10 76.9
    Deteriorated somewhat 0 0.0
    Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
    Total 13 100.0

    Back to section top



  91. Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

  92. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which consumer ABS (for example, backed by credit card receivables or auto loans) are funded changed?
    1. Terms for average clients
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 10 100.0
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 10 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 10 100.00
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 10 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 9 90.0
        Eased somewhat 1 10.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 10 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 9 90.0
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 1 10.0
        Total 10 100.0

    2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 10 100.0
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 10 100.0

      2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 9 90.0
        Eased somewhat 1 10.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 10 100.0

      3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 9 90.0
        Eased somewhat 1 10.0
        Eased considerably 0 0.0
        Total 10 100.0

      4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
        Tightened considerably 0 0.0
        Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
        Remained basically unchanged 9 90.0
        Eased somewhat 0 0.0
        Eased considerably 1 10.0
        Total 10 100.0

  93. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of consumer ABS by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 10 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 10 100.0

  94. Over the past three months, how has demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days of consumer ABS by your institution’s clients changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 10.0
    Remained basically unchanged 9 90.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 10 100.0

  95. Over the past three months, how have liquidity and functioning in the consumer ABS market changed?
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Improved considerably 0 0.0
    Improved somewhat 2 20.0
    Remained basically unchanged 8 80.0
    Deteriorated somewhat 0 0.0
    Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
    Total 10 100.0
  96. Back to section top



    Mark and Collateral Disputes

  97. Over the past three months, how has the volume of mark and collateral disputes relating to lending against each of the following collateral types changed?
    1. High-grade corporate bonds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 17 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0

    2. High-yield corporate bonds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 16 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0

    3. Equities
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 17 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0

    4. Agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0

    5. Non-agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 7.1
      Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0

    6. CMBS
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 7.7
      Remained basically unchanged 12 92.3
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0

    7. Consumer ABS
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 8.3
      Remained basically unchanged 11 91.7
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 12 100.0

  98. Over the past three months, how has the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes relating to lending against each of the following collateral types changed?
    1. High-grade corporate bonds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 18 100.0

    2. High-yield corporate bonds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 16 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0

    3. Equities
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 18 100.0

    4. Agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19 100.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0

    5. Non-agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 7.1
      Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0

    6. CMBS
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 7.7
      Remained basically unchanged 12 92.3
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0

    7. Consumer ABS
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 1 8.3
      Remained basically unchanged 11 91.7
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
      Decreased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 12 100.0
  99. Back to section top


    Optional Question

  100. Question 80 requests feedback on any other issues you judge to be important relating to credit terms applicable to securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives contracts.6
  101. Special Questions

    The following special questions are intended to provide better context for interpreting the core set of questions appearing above, which focus on changes in credit terms over the preceding three months. Unlike the core questions, these special questions will not be included in the survey on an ongoing basis.


    Warehouse Funding of Commercial Real Estate Loans

  102. Since the middle of 2012, how have the terms under which commercial real estate (CRE) loans are funded on an interim basis at your institution, through warehouse financing and similar secured facilities intended to allow the accumulation of assets for eventual securitization, changed?
  103. Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 7 70.0
    Eased somewhat 3 30.0
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 10 100.0

  104. How has your institutionís willingness to fund CRE loans on an interim basis at prevailing market rates and under prevailing market terms, through warehouse financing and similar secured facilities intended to allow the accumulation of assets for eventual securitization, changed since the middle of 2012? Willingness to expand your book of business in this area may stem from a formal analysis considering a required return on the risk capital employed or from a more subjective assessment of the attractiveness of the risk-adjusted return from this activity.

  105. Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 2 18.2
    Increased somewhat 1 9.1
    Remained basically unchanged 8 72.7
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0

    Decreased considerably

    0 0.0
    Total 11 100.0

  106. Since the middle of 2012, how has demand by your institution’s clients for funding of CRE loans on an interim basis, through warehouse financing and similar secured facilities intended to allow the accumulation of assets for eventual securitization, changed?

    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 2 18.2
    Increased somewhat 4 36.4
    Remained basically unchanged 5 45.5
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0

    Decreased considerably

    0 0.0
    Total 11 100.0

    Warehouse Funding of Syndicated Bank Loans

  107. Since the middle of 2012, how have the terms under which syndicated bank loans are funded on an interim basis at your institution, through warehouse financing and similar secured facilities intended to allow the accumulation of assets for eventual securitization, changed?

    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 9 90.0
    Eased somewhat 1 10.0

    Eased considerably

    0 0.0
    Total 10 100.0

  108. How has your institutionís willingness to fund syndicated bank loans on an interim basis at prevailing market rates and under prevailing market terms, through warehouse financing and similar secured facilities intended to allow the accumulation of assets for eventual securitization, changed since the middle of 2012? Willingness to expand your book of business in this area may stem from a formal analysis considering a required return on the risk capital employed or from a more subjective assessment of the attractiveness of the risk-adjusted return from this activity.

  109. Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 5 45.5
    Remained basically unchanged 5 45.5
    Decreased somewhat 1 9.1

    Decreased considerably

    0 0.0
    Total 11 100.0

  110. Since the middle of 2012, how has demand by your institutionís clients for funding of syndicated bank loans on an interim basis, through warehouse financing and similar secured facilities intended to allow the accumulation of assets for eventual securitization, changed?

  111. Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 1 8.3
    Increased somewhat 6 50.0
    Remained basically unchanged 5 41.7
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0

    Decreased considerably

    0 0.0
    Total 12 100.0

    Client Risk Appetite

  112. Since the beginning of 2013, how has your overall assessment of the appetite of your institutionís clients of each specified type to bear investment risk changed, considering all transactions and activities that involve current or potential credit risk exposure for your firm?

    1. Most-favored hedge funds (as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship)

      Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 11 50.0
      Remained basically unchanged 10 45.5
      Decreased somewhat 1 4.5

      Decreased considerably

      0 0.0
      Total 22 100.0

    2. Other hedge funds
    3. Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 7 31.8
      Remained basically unchanged 13 59.1
      Decreased somewhat 2 9.1

      Decreased considerably

      0 0.0
      Total 22 100.0

    4. REITs
    5. Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 11 50.0
      Remained basically unchanged 10 45.5
      Decreased somewhat 1 4.5

      Decreased considerably

      0 0.0
      Total 22 100.0

    6. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
    7. Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 3 14.3
      Remained basically unchanged 18 85.7
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0

      Decreased considerably

      0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0

    8. Insurance comapnies
    9. Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 5 22.7
      Remained basically unchanged 17 77.3
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0

      Decreased considerably

      0 0.0
      Total 22 100.0

    10. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    11. Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 2 9.5
      Remained basically unchanged 18 85.7
      Decreased somewhat 1 4.8

      Decreased considerably

      0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0

    12. Other institutional investors
    13. Number of Respondents Percent
      Increased considerably 0 0.0
      Increased somewhat 3 30.0
      Remained basically unchanged 7 70.0
      Decreased somewhat 0 0.0

      Decreased considerably

      0 0.0
      Total 10 100.0


Footnotes

1. For questions that ask about credit terms, reported net percentages equal the percentage of institutions that reported tightening terms ("tightened considerably" or "tightened somewhat") minus the percentage of institutions that reported easing terms ("eased considerably" or "eased somewhat"). For questions that ask about demand, reported net fractions equal the percentage of institutions that reported increased demand ("increased considerably" or "increased somewhat") minus the percentage of institutions that reported decreased demand ("decreased considerably" or "decreased somewhat"). Return to text

2.Trading REITs invest in assets backed by real estate rather than directly in real estate. Return to text

3. The survey asks specifically about requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin, acceptable collateral, recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits, triggers and covenants, and other documentation features, including cure periods and cross-default provisions. Return to text

4. Question 80, not discussed here, was optional and allowed respondents to provide additional comments. Return to text

5. Note that survey respondents are instructed to report changes in liquidity and functioning in the market for the underlying collateral to be funded through repurchase agreements and similar secured financing transactions, not changes in the funding market itself. This question is not asked with respect to equity markets in the core questions. Return to text

6. See note 4 in the Summary. Return to text

Back to Top

Last update: April 14, 2013